Re: The same old shit!!!

"Imre A. Szabo" wrote:

> That is rather obvious.  The point is that the French are no worse
then the
> U.S. when it comes to who wins the elections sometimes.

Ah, but they're also no better :)

> The point is that they have had a significant amount of their manpower
> slaughtered.	This has diminished them in ways that will last for
> generations.	My comment was to get you to stop and realize this. 
There was
> a lot written after World War 1 by them to lament the shear loss of
what
> they as collective group were from the slaughter.

Just as there was by many other nations.  Ever hear of the "Slaughter of
the
Innocents" of WWI?  That's the period of time in early 1915 when the
best and
brightest of Germany were mowed down and wasted on the battlefields of
France.
Didn't seem to impinge on their ability to fight in the following war,
although
it likely contributed to the rise of Hitler since many of the otherwise
thinking
people weren't around to oppose him.  Also don't forget that the Brits
suffered
at least as badly did the French, and we don't seem to see them as
having a
reputation for lack of military prowess because of it.	Even the United
States
saw the loss of the better part of a generation of young men in our own
Civil
War, and while it did definitely have an effect, I don't think you can
point to
that as a reason.  Face it, the reason young men are sent to fight wars
is
because they are 1) the most capable to do so, and 2) the most
expendable.  It's
always been that way, and I don't see it as a justification for why a
particular
nation may have the reputation it does.